Andrew Davis's bloghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis
enBush Gets Ramos/Compean Commutation Righthttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/bush-gets-ramoscompean-commutation-right
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When Border Agents <span class="lingo_region">Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were arrested and convicted for crimes surrounding the 2005 shooting of drug smuggler </span><span class="lingo_region">Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, they became a symbol of the immigration problems facing the United States.</span><span class="lingo_region"> They were given a prison sentence of more than 10 years for what some believed to be them "just doing their job," causing conservatives to scream for a pardon from President George Bush. </span></p>
<p><span class="lingo_region">To their chagrin, Bush refused to touch their case until now.</span></p>
<p><span class="lingo_region">A day before leaving office, Bush commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean, saying the time they have served in prison and the loss of their jobs has been sufficient punishment for their crimes.</span></p>
<p><span class="lingo_region">In this case, Bush got it right. </span></p>
<p><span class="lingo_region">The actions of Ramos and Compean were crimes, and they deserved to be punished for those crimes. A pardon of these men would have been an affront to the rule of law in the United States. Sure, the immigration system in the United Sates is broken; however, those entrusted to enforce the law are not above it.</span></p>
<p><span class="lingo_region">Did Ramos and Compean deserve to be in jail for more than a decade? No, but neither did they deserve to have their crimes wiped away with a presidential pardon.</span></p>
<p>Let's learn from the case of Ramos and Compean and try to fix the broken system in which they found themselves. We must improve our immigration and drug laws in the United States to ensure that no other person ends up in the same situation as Ramos and Compean.</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:21:27 +0000Andrew Davis3982 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/bush-gets-ramoscompean-commutation-right#commentsSay 'Yes' to Sweatshopshttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/say-yes-to-sweatshops
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>"But, sweatshops are evil!" you say.</p>
<p>Tell that to the kids collecting plastic out of smoking piles of refuse in the landfills of Cambodia for $.05 a pound.</p>
<p>At least in the sweatshops you don't get run over by garbage trucks.</p>
<p>In a nation where minimum wage is $6.55 (and more than 98 percent of all workers in the U.S. earn more), sweatshops have earned the same reputation as deathrow inmates. However, <em>New York Times</em> columnist Nicholas Kristof says <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.htm?_r=1">there's a...softer side...to sweatshops</a>.</p>
<p>"I’m glad that many Americans are repulsed by the idea of importing products made by barely paid, barely legal workers in dangerous factories," writes Kristof. "Yet sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty."</p>
<p>Not everybody across the world has a neighborhood McDonald's that's hiring, and when your options are a factory paying $1.25/hr or digging around in a landfill, it doesn't take a Harvard economist to figure out what makes better financial sense. </p>
<p>"When I defend sweatshops, people always ask me: But would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But I would want even less to pull a rickshaw. In the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom," Kristof says.</p>
<p>Our hat goes off to you Mr. Kristof, for saying what everybody knows, but is too afraid to say.</p>
<p>Please read the rest of Kristof's article <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.htm?_r=1">here</a>.</p>
<p>(h/t, <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/">Greg Mankiw</a>)</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:00:08 +0000Andrew Davis3980 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/say-yes-to-sweatshops#commentsThe Skepticshttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/the-skeptics
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Not everybody is pumped about Obama's $825 billion stimulus plans, especially the part that includes billions of taxpayer dollars being spent by the government in the hopes of jump-starting the economy. Here's what we've said about it:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/if-obamas-plan-doesnt-seem-to-make-sense-its-because-it-doesnt">If Obama's Plan Doesn't Seem to Make Sense, it's Because it Doesn't</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/were-not-going-to-spend-our-way-to-economic-recovery">We're Not Going to Spend Our Way to Economic Recovery </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/is-cutting-taxes-really-raising-taxes">Is Cutting Taxes Really Raising Taxes?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/keynesian-economics-explained">Keynesian Economics Explained</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/the-lp-goes-to-harvard">The LP Goes to Harvard</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/obamas-new-raw-deal">Obama's new "Raw Deal" </a></li>
</ul><p>But don't just take our word for it: There is a growing number of economists speaking out against the logic behind Obama's stimulus package. Harvard economics professor Greg Mankiw (who've we've mentioned on here a few times before) has been recording these economists' statements against the stimulus plan. This is some of what Mankiw has compiled:</p>
<ul><li><strong>From the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0113edit2jan13,0,5177292.story">Chicago Tribune</a>:</strong></li>
</ul><blockquote><blockquote>
<p>John Cochrane, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says that among academics over the last 30 years, the idea of fiscal stimulus has been discredited and in graduate courses, it is "taught only for its fallacies."</p>
<p>New York University economist Thomas Sargent agrees: "The calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul><li><strong>Economist <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/01/on_the_obama_st.html">Gary Becker</a>:</strong></li>
</ul><blockquote><blockquote>Perhaps their [Romer and Bernstein's] <a href="http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf">estimates of the stimulus</a> provided by direct government spending are in the right ballpark, but I tend to believe that they are excessive. For one thing, the true value of these government programs may be limited because they will be put together hastily, and are likely to contain a lot of political pork and other inefficiencies. For another thing, with unemployment at 7% to 8% of the labor force, it is impossible to target effective spending programs that primarily utilize unemployed workers, or underemployed capital. Spending on infrastructure, and especially on health, energy, and education, will mainly attract employed persons from other activities to the activities stimulated by the government spending. The net job creation from these and related spending is likely to be rather small. In addition, if the private activities crowded out are more valuable than the activities hastily stimulated by this plan, the value of the increase in employment and GDP could be very small, even negative.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul><li><strong><a onmouseover="return escape( popwSearchNews( this ))" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&amp;refer=columnist_hassett&amp;sid=aGgZR28hHCPk">Kevin Hassett</a>, </strong><strong>American Enterprise Institute </strong><strong>director of economic-policy studies</strong></li>
</ul><blockquote><p>
</p><blockquote>We are in the midst of a crisis caused by so many financial institutions borrowing too much money. Somehow, a critical mass of policy makers now believes that the correct response is for the U.S. government to borrow too much money.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul><li><strong>NYU Economics Professor <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/backus-on-spending-stimulus.html">David Backus</a></strong></li>
</ul><blockquote><blockquote><strong>Hard to do.</strong> It's not easy to spend large amounts of new money quickly. Harder still to do it in a way that creates good value for society and doesn't bring out the worst in our politicians. (I can hear Jon Stewart on the Daily Show: "Where's Ted Stevens when we need him?")</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>Bad timing.</strong> Right now, most forecasts call for continued shrinkage in the first half of 2009, modest growth in the second half, when the stimulus starts to come online, and faster growth in 2010, when spending hits high gear. This is, of course, the classic argument against countercyclical fiscal policy: it's hard to get the timing right.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>Small multiplier.</strong> Let us say that for every dollar of extra government spending, GDP goes up m dollars, where "m" is the multiplier. Undergraduate textbooks, including your favorite, sometimes suggest m is large. The evidence is fuzzy, to be sure, but to me it suggests a multiplier around one, maybe smaller. Even stimulus cheerleader Paul Krugman only claims 1.1. If that's the case, the impact of government spending (say 700b over two years) is barely enough to reverse the decline in GDP we expect to see over the next two quarters.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>Long-term budget issues.</strong> I don't spend much time in Washington, but I thought the mainstream view among government economists was that our retirement and health-care programs were likely to bust the budget over the next 2-3 decades. Recent directors of the CBO under both Republican and Democratic Congresses have made this point, and I hope I wasn't the only one listening. The US is not Argentina, but it still seems a little incongruous to advocate massive increases in spending when the long-term problem is paying for spending already on the<br />books.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>It's the financial system, stupid.</strong> Japan in the 1990s is a Rorshach test for macroeconomists, so I can't claim everyone sees this as I do. But my take (borrowed from Anil Kashyap) is that Japan demonstrated that the real issue in financial crises is the financial system. If we don't fix it, no amount of fiscal stimulus will make much difference. That's one of the reasons I'm optimistic about the US right now: unlike Japan, we faced our problems, ugly as they were, and have acted decisively to correct them.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<ul><li><strong>George Mason University Economist <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/12/fiscal-policy-a.html">Tyler Cowen</a></strong></li>
</ul><blockquote><blockquote>The bottom line is this: we are being asked to believe that a big, trillion or even multi-trillion fiscal stimulus can boost the current macroeconomy. If you look at history, there isn't good reason to believe that. Any single example, such as the Nazis, can be knocked down for lack of relevance or lack of correspondence to current conditions. Fair enough. But the burden of proof isn't on the skeptics. It's up to the <em>advocates</em> of the trillion dollar expenditure to come up with the convincing examples of a fiscal-led recovery. Right now we're mostly at "It wasn't really tried." And then a mental retreat back into the notion that surely good public sector project opportunities are out there.
<p>So what you have is the possibility of faith -- or lack thereof -- that our government will spend this money well.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>GOP House Leader John Boehner has also put a list together, which you can read <a href="http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=399">here</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, economics is not a highly-pressed study in our schools, at both the high school and collegiate levels. While students may be forced into workshops and classes about diversity training, far too few students leave college with a good understanding of even the most basic economic principles. As such, it's easy for politicians to put together great-sounding proposals that make little economic sense, as we believe the case to be with Obama's stimulus package. </p>
<p>It's nice to think that government can easily spend its way out of a recession. Government (both Republicans and Democrats) has no problem dropping a couple of billion here and there, and this will be made much easier with the moral imperative of economic recovery. And, it seems so simple: Government spends money and the GDP increases! How come we don't do this all the time?</p>
<p>Answer: because it doesn't work. As Cowen pointed out in the quotation above, there is little (if any) historical evidence suggesting that this type of Keynesian spending actually works. It didn't work for Argentina, Zimbabwe and most notably, Japan. It didn't work for Hoover. It didn't work for Roosevelt. It didn't work for Ford either. What suddenly has changed to think that it may work for Obama?</p>
<p>We've said it over and over again: Obama's stimulus plan is a sham that will cost taxpayers near a trillion dollars with no tangible economic benefit. </p>
<p>Our solution?</p>
<p>Cut taxes, permanently. Reduce spending, drastically. And, over all, keep government from micromanaging the economy.</p>
<p><em><strong>Editor's Note:</strong> Many readers of this blog may be out of a college, and therefore not registered for a semester of Econ 101; however, it is never too late to begin brushing up on your economics. The Age of the Internet has made this terrifically easy, as that many economics professors now run their own blogs. Mankiw, for example, has an <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/">excellent blog</a> on economics that is easy to understand, frequently updated and usually has great insight into current political topics of an economic persuasian. Here is a <a href="http://www.blogs.com/topten/the-really-10-best-economics-blogs/">list I've found</a> of other great economics blogs for your reading pleasure.</em></p>
</div></div></div>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:04:14 +0000Andrew Davis3974 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/the-skeptics#commentsFred Barnes and the Legacy of Bushhttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/fred-barnes-and-the-legacy-of-bush
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As we move closer to Jan. 20 and the end of the Bush administration, the push to salvage the legacy of the Bush administration becomes stronger and stronger. However, even from an objective standpoint, there is little that Bush has done in the last eight years that has made America safer, stronger or freer. As a result, the clamoring to save-face have pushed Bush sycophants to unprecedented levels of absurdity. </p>
<p> Nowhere is this more apparent than in the <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp?pg=2">recent article</a> published by <em>The Weekly Standard</em> editor Fred Barnes about the "<span class="deck">ten things the president got right.</span>"</p>
<p> The following are a handful of assertions made by Barnes as achievements of the Bush administration in the last eight years, and my responses to these statements:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The idea that Bush has saved lives in the so-called "War on Terror" isn't exactly logical, and it isn't exactly true. <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/White_House_Increase_in_terror_attacks_0110.html">Data compiled</a> by the RAND Corporation actually shows dramatic increases in deaths caused by global terrorism following the election of George Bush to office. </p>
<p> But, that's the thing with things you don't know—you don't know them. Unfortunately, many neoconservatives struggling to find some redeeming value of the last eight years have taken the unknown to mean something they can posture as justifications for many of Bush's mistakes.</p>
<p> Not only do I have to question the moral fiber of those who champion torture, the denial of habeas corpus and spying on American citizens, I also question their intellectual integrity in saying that these anti-American practices have saved lives. Barnes says thousands of lives have been saved, but why not millions, or for that matter, billions? One might even say that although we don't know for sure if these practices have saved lives despite their obvious moral and legal failings, Bush probably saved mankind as we know it. After all, it follows the same "logic." </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize. </strong> </p></blockquote>
<p>This follows along the same lines Barnes' second "Bush Achievement." One can hardly consider the further undermining of the U.S. Constitution to be an achievement, unless that is one's goal all along. By the sounds of it, this may be Barnes' objective. </p>
<p> Ignoring the obvious (and aforementioned) moral hazards of such programs and initiatives headed by the Bush administration, which run contrary to the idea of freedom, Barnes takes no issue with apparent Constitutional violations of the presidential decisions of which he calls "achievements." </p>
<p> There are decisions the president has the authority to make, either by Constitutional or assumed duties. However, so long as there is a rule of law in the United States, the president should be held to that standard.</p>
<p> Presidential authority, federal authority and state authority are all powers of control that citizens of a free society need to both question and suspect, as that these are all potential agents of tyranny. Barnes' praise of Bush's power-grabs seems to indicate he'd be perfectly content in a society where those like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama could rule without worry of opposition. However, I suspect in the next few years we shall be hearing a different tune being sung by Barnes as the presidential authority of Bush is used by Obama to further his own agenda. </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have not met a liberal, conservative or libertarian who is happy with No Child Left Behind. Not only is it a gross expansion of federal power over our schools, it has lowered the standards of education in schools across the country. Mandatory, standardized testing is a perfect "one-size-fits-all" solution fit for a Soviet society; however, it has had disastrous consequences for American schools. </p>
<p> Because schools are constantly required to meet and increase standards, schools instead lower standards in order to meet them without facing cuts in funding. Additionally, great schools are in danger of being labeled "failing schools" when they find it difficult to beat previous test scores.</p>
<p> This is accountability? Not only was No Child Left Behind not adequately funded for its purposes, it was a poorly crafted program that undermined its own intiatives while increasing federal control of schools. </p>
<p> This is why teachers, students, conservatives and liberals all hate it, and why statists love it.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world.</strong> </p></blockquote>
<p>There is nothing like democracy from the barrel of a gun. For conservatives so adamantly opposed to social welfare, they are quick to jump on the humanitarian train when it comes to global welfare. Unfortunately, this is much more expensive, both in dollars and American lives. </p>
<p> Not only is an interventionist foreign policy based on humanitarian motives expensive in life and blood, it is also largely ineffective when begun in nations not ready for democracy. Take a look at Palestine, who had free elections and voted-in Hamas, a terrorist organization. </p>
<p> Democracy is much better than any State authority (though Barnes largely argues for more State authority in his article); however, in order for democracy to work, it must be manifested domestically. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to subsidize a World Task Force on Democracy. </p>
<blockquote><p><strong>The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003.</strong> </p></blockquote>
<p>The Medicare prescription drug plan added trillions of dollars to an already struggling government program, further pushing these programs into financial ruin. Then-Comptroller General for the United States David Walker called the program "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s." </p>
<p> How is this an achievement? </p>
<p> <strong>Conclusion:</strong></p>
<p> There are many different types of conservatives, but I don't think Fred Barnes is one of them. If so, he represents a disgusting mutation of conservatism that has, somewhere in its philosophical evolution, replaced federalism with a high-octane breed of statism. Instead of championing people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry, Barnes and those of his ilk would feel comfortable in the company of those like Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and Sadam Hussein. </p>
<p> There is no place for Barnes' politics in a free society, and his cheerleading of some of the most egregious offenses of the Bush administration clearly shows Barnes to be an enemy of the Constitution and freedom. His "big-government conservatism," or more accurately, "neostatism conservatism" is a plague on our society and truly represents the ultimate bastardization of the movement once lead by Barry Goldwater. </p>
<p> This type of moral and intellectual depravity is a cancer on the Republican Party, and is the reason John McCain was defeated in the last election.</p>
<p> Americans don't want a king. They want a leader that inspires hope, not fear. Americans want a leader who fights for more freedom, not for more laws. If Republicans and the conservative movement that drives that party wish to survive much longer, they will return to their libertarian roots and reject the creeping influence of fascism into their ideology. </p>
<p> How will history judge Bush? Nobody knows right now and as far as I'm concerned, this question is wholly irrelevant. </p>
<p> I'm an American who lived during the Bush administration and I can truly say my life has been negatively impacted as a result of his policies. Not only am I facing the responsibility to pay for trillions and trillions of dollars spent during his administration, the civil liberties that protected me from government surveillance and abuse have been undermined or altogether destroyed. </p>
<p> Bush has so far raised the ceiling of executive power that I fear I will never see the day when government is more restrained than when he first began office. </p>
<p> I don't know if I can blame the Bush administration for the philosophical poison spewed by Fred Barnes and others like him, or whether Bush simply fell into their philosophical trap; however, it is imperative that we reject this philosophy of State authority and big government if we expect to remain a nation of free people.</p>
<p> Liberty is a lamp that guides a nation to prosperity and happiness, and the day it goes out is the day that nation is lost. While the Bush administration, through malice or ignorance, sullied the glass that protects this light of liberty, there is still time to wipe it clean and begin anew.</p>
<p> However, that time is dwindling. </p>
<p> My only hope is that this article never becomes an obituary for freedom, and simply remains a remonstrance of the injuries suffered in the last eight years.</p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:14:54 +0000Andrew Davis3964 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/fred-barnes-and-the-legacy-of-bush#commentsKeynesian Economics Explainedhttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/keynesian-economics-explained
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <a href="http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/">Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation</a> recently released a <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/12/15/are-we-all-keynesians-now/">video</a> with Cato's Daniel Mitchell explaining the failed logic behind Keynesian economics. It's a great watch, since Keynesian theory is the driving force behind President-Elect Barack Obama's latest stimulus plans:<a href="http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/"><br /></a></p>
<p></p><center>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoxDyC7y7PM&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoxDyC7y7PM&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><p></p></center>
<p> </p>
<p>
</p></div></div></div>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:57:45 +0000Andrew Davis3960 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/keynesian-economics-explained#commentsIs Cutting Taxes Really Raising Taxes?http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/is-cutting-taxes-really-raising-taxes
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Are cutting taxes really raising taxes? It's an interesting proposition, and one that economists are discussing in relation to President-Elect Barack Obama's proposed stimulus plan. In Obama's projected <a target="_blank" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop">$775 billion dollar stimulus plan</a>, up to 40 percent of the (borrowed) money is anticipated to go towards tax cuts, while the rest will be put into infrastructure projects like bridge and road building. </p>
<p>We have talked at great length about the <a href="http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/calamity-and-consequence">dangers of Obama's public works program</a>; however, George Mason University Economics Professor <a target="_blank" href="http://economics.gmu.edu/faculty/rroberts.html">Russell Roberts</a> brings up a different angle: When a tax cut isn't a tax cut. </p>
<blockquote><p>If the government cuts rates or just gives rebates but at the same time increases the size of government, taxes are not lower. They're larger. Government is taking a bigger share of the economic pie leaving less for the private sector to spend. The future burden of taxes is higher. As Milton Friedman used to argue, don't focus on how government is financed, whether it's out of current taxes or future taxes. Focus on the spending. If government grows as a percentage of the economy, then the burden on the private sector is bigger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can read the rest of Roberts' article <a href="http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2009/01/when-a-tax-cut.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>If Roberts' argument is valid (which, given the fiscal history of government, is sure to be correct), then this casts a very different light on Republicans who may cut taxes, but increase government spending.</p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:30:11 +0000Andrew Davis3952 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/is-cutting-taxes-really-raising-taxes#commentsWill the Feds Bust Santa Claus?http://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/will-the-feds-bust-santa-claus
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>by George Getz (former Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party)<br /> <br />When Santa Claus comes to town this week, he'd better watch out -- because the federal government may be making a list of his crimes (and checking it twice), the Libertarian Party warned today.<br /> <br />"Hark the federal agents sing, Santa is guilty of nearly everything," said Libertarian Party press secretary George Getz. "The feds know when Santa's been bad or good -- and he's been bad, for goodness sakes."<br /> <br />Does Santa belong in the slammer? Instead of stuffing stockings, should he be making license plates?<br /> <br />Yes, said Getz, if he's held to the same standards as a typical American. For example:</p>
<ul><li>Every December 25, the illegal immigrant known as Santa Claus crosses the border into the United States without a passport. He carries concealed contraband, which he sneaks into the country in order to avoid inspection by the U.S. Customs Service. And just what's in all those brightly colored packages tied up with ribbons, anyway? The Drug Czar and Homeland Security want to know.</li>
<li>Look at how this international fugitive gets around: Santa flies in a custom-built sleigh that hasn't been approved by the FAA. He never files a flight plan. He has no pilot's license. In the dark of night, he rides the skies with just a tiny bioluminescent red light to guide him -- a clear violation of traffic safety regulations.</li>
<li>Pulling Santa's sleigh: Eight tiny reindeer, a federally protected species being put to hard labor. None of these reindeer have their required shots, and Santa's never bothered to get these genetically- engineered animals registered and licensed. It's no wonder: He keeps them penned outside his workplace in a clear violation of zoning laws.</li>
<li>But Crooked Claus the Conniving Capitalist harms more than just animals -- he's hurting hard-working American laborers, too. Isn't Santa's Workshop really Santa's Sweatshop, where his non-union employees don't make minimum wage and get no holiday pay? Add the fact that OSHA has never inspected the place, and you have a Third-World elf-exploitation operation that only Kathy Lee Gifford could love.</li>
<li>No wonder Santa is able to maintain his monopoly over the toy distribution industry: He's cornered the Christmas gift market. Santa dares to give away his products for free in a sinister attempt to crush all competition -- just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Antitrust Lawsuit Memo to the feds: Is Santa Claus the Bill Gates of Christmas?</li>
</ul><p>The bottom line, said Getz: "It might be tough sledding for Jolly St. Nick this Christmas if the government decides to prosecute him.<br /> <br />"We're just surprised it hasn't already happened. After all, Santa Claus is everything that politicians aren't: He's popular, reliable, and gives us something for nothing every December 25th -- instead of taking our money every April 15th," says Getz</p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 25 Dec 2008 13:58:13 +0000Andrew Davis3940 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/will-the-feds-bust-santa-claus#commentsCalifornia Case Represents Ills of Direct Democracyhttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/california-case-represents-ills-of-direct-democracy
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>There has been a recent push in third-party circles for a move to "direct democracy" in the United States. Direct democracy, where the citizens govern by majority vote, is often favored by those who wish to circumvent elected officials who those individuals feel cannot properly represent the interests of every U.S. citizen. In terms of direct representation, direct democracy truly does meet these goals. After all, every citizen has a voice—technically. </p>
<p>Our current Republic still has strong elements of direct democracy. Voter referendums and other ballot initiatives leave it up to the citizens to decide on issues like lotteries, gambling, gay marriage, abortion and any other legislative initiative citizens would rather see themselves decide rather than their elected officials.</p>
<p>On its surface, direct democracy is appealing because those like Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich and Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens do not have a chance to craft the laws by which the people are governed. </p>
<p>Majority rule—it's the American way.</p>
<p>However, the recent debacle in California over gay marriage illustrates the dangers and failures of direct democracy. </p>
<p>In the Nov. 2008 elections, California citizens were asked to vote on Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in California. And, to the surprise of the state (and the nation as well), Proposition 8 passed by 52 to 47 percent. </p>
<p>Had this been direct democracy, it would have ended there with one phrase: "The people have spoken." But this was not to be the case in the great state of California, where California Attorney General Jerry Brown is <a target="_blank" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage20-2008dec20,0,3628665.story?page=2">currently petitioning the California Supreme Court</a> to knock down Proposition 8 for what he believes to be a Constitutional violation. The linchpin of his case is whether the right of people to marry is considered an "inalienable" right, which the California constitution says cannot be violated—even by the vote of the people to change the Constitution. </p>
<p>"[The issue] presents a conflict between the constitutional power of the voters to amend the Constitution, on the one hand, and the Constitution's Declaration of Rights, on the other," says Brown. He is questioning "whether rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."</p>
<p>This is a great question, and one proponents of direct democracy have failed to adequately answer. </p>
<p>The prevailing philosophy of direct democracy is that people should have the final say about the laws by which they are governed. Should this be so, then it would seem that the Constitution would have no supremacy over a direct vote, at least if it is a Constitutional amendment. Granted, people may still change the Constitution in our present form of government, but the case in California has a different moral than its constitutional implications. Proposition 8 represents the ultimate failure in direct democracy and majority rule—when the people vote <em>against</em> more freedom, rather than <em>for</em> more freedom. </p>
<p>The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Regardless of the issue specifically with gay marriage, the problem with direct democracy in this case is that the people felt that they had a right to restrict, regulate, prohibit or limit the relationships of their neighbors, and in a system where the majority rule, it certainly was in their authority to do so. </p>
<p>This is not to say that direct democracy could never work, but it could only do so in a libertarian utopia that could also foster voluntarily socialism, societal anarchy or a number of other systems of order that rely on the perfect behavior of those governed. In order for direct democracy to work without violating the rights of others, those citizens who voted would have to have an absolute understanding of and dedication to property rights and individual liberty—something that is extremely unlikely to ever exist.</p>
<p>There is no place for any broad use of direct democracy in a free society because the majority does not always respect the rights of the whole. Even by a simple test against our platform, direct democracy does not stand up to the phrase: "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."</p>
<p>Government, in its good and bad days, is still comprised of citizens who run for public office; the same citizens who would be voting in a system of direct democracy. The laws passed by our elected officials could just as easily be those passed by citizens in a direct democracy. The problem that direct democracy seeks to resolve is not really how we are governed, but by whom we are governed. And, since we elect those that govern us, we are indirectly responsible for many of the laws that are passed.</p>
<p>One of the most insufferable failures of direct democracy is its vulnerability to the whims and trends of public opinion—something our Founding Fathers hoped to avoid at all costs. This is one of the reasons why the Constitution is so difficult to change. </p>
<p>Laws last much longer than the moods of public opinion, and what society may feel at one point in time may not be what society feels 50 years into the future. Slavery is just one example. Giving power directly back to the people undermines this protection from the tyranny of the majority, and as Libertarians, we fully know what abuse of the minority feels like. </p>
<p>As far as California goes, the people have spoken, even if it's not what some wanted to hear. So long as people are allowed to put referendums on the ballot, there will be times when the majority wins at the cost of minority rights. Does it make it right? Of course not, but that is the risk one takes when transferring direct power from the legislature back to the citizens. </p>
<p>Politics is a reflection of the morality of the people, and our problems with the corruption of government will be solved not by giving people direct control over laws. It will be solved when people begin voting-in public officials who are above corruption. And, should these politicians eventually slip up, citizens vote them out of office. </p>
<p>It's far easier to change out a politician than it is to change a Constitutional amendment.</p>
<p>Direct democracy misses the entire point of government corruption while opening up civil rights to wholesale abuse by the masses. The best defense against domestic tyranny is not an empowered public, but an informed one.</p>
</div></div></div>Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:48:18 +0000Andrew Davis3936 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/california-case-represents-ills-of-direct-democracy#commentsGovernment's Role in the Economyhttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/governments-role-in-the-economy
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>When we say that we want to keep government out of the economy, people often ask, "Isn't that economic anarchy?"</p>
<p>At first our "Wall of Separation" commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It's just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse.</p>
<p>From our <a href="http://www.lp.org/platform">platform</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong> 2.0 Economic Liberty</strong></p>
<p>A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So what do we mean when we say we want to keep government out of the economy, yet still maintain it has a role? We want to avoid exactly what government is doing now: micromanaging the largest economy in the world. </p>
<p>As the saying goes, "The freer the market, the freer the people." Government has a necessary and proper role in our society to protect property rights, and this includes property rights in the market. However, government does not have a responsibility to micromanage the economy.</p>
<p>Though, as of late, government seems more prone to rewarding possible fraud than investigating it.</p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:46:57 +0000Andrew Davis3930 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/governments-role-in-the-economy#commentsCalamity and Consequencehttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/calamity-and-consequence
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It doesn't take much to go from "bad" to "really bad" when government gets involved. This is especially true when those in power have the philosophy that, "If it's broken, government can fix it."</p>
<p> Unfortunately, far too often government tries to force itself into problem situations with good intentions that have disastrous consequences. Because many times these consequences aren't immediate, government officials and the voters who elect them to office don't learn from these mistakes.</p>
<p>At one of my favorite blogs for economics, <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/crises-and-government.html">Greg Mankiw</a>, an economics professor at Harvard, has posted this graph of government revenue as a percent of GDP:</p>
<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/SUkaGqXpwnI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/XUAR5kQ9BIE/s400/taxes+as+percent+of+gdp.gif" target="_blank"><img width="490" vspace="10" height="283" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/SUkaGqXpwnI/AAAAAAAAAvQ/XUAR5kQ9BIE/s400/taxes+as+percent+of+gdp.gif" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Mankiw makes note of the exponential growth of government from 1929 to 1945.</p>
<p>"It is easy to understand why the size of government grew so much during this period: It was responding to the crises of the Great Depression and, especially, World War II," says Mankiw. "But what is noteworthy is that while these crises were <em>transitory</em>, the increase in the scope of government was <em>permanent</em>."</p>
<p>The problem Mankiw highlights is that while our economic problems come and go, government "fixes" have a nasty habit of hanging around:</p>
<blockquote><p>"This historical episode is one reason why advocates of limited government are rightly worried about the fiscal stimulus package that the incoming administration is going to propose. Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff, is reported to have said, 'You don't ever want to let a crisis go to waste: It's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.' It is not entirely clear what he meant by this. But one interpretation is that he is going to use a temporary crisis as an excuse to engineer a permanent increase in the size of government."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Government programs are like your crazy uncle who always overstays his holiday visit. Except, imagine this uncle is constantly drunk, acts without much thought, and wrecks everything he touches.</p>
<p>Yet, we keep inviting him back, year after year.</p>
<p>In his concluding remarks, Mankiw asks: "Five or ten years from now, when the economy is presumably at some normal level of employment and growth, what will the federal budget look like, as evaluated by deficit and tax revenue as a share of GDP?"</p>
<p>I hate to find out the answer to that.</p>
<p>The problem is not one of being pragmatic, but one of philosophy. The relationship between government intervention and the ensuing disastrous consquences is about as predictable as the Law of Gravity. You drop a rock, and it falls. Government intervenes, and the economy suffers.</p>
<p>But as far as philosophy, Democrats have never had any problem to getting involved in economic affairs, and Republicans appear to be heading full-steam in that direction.</p>
<p>During his 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain never once expressed a genuine opposition to keeping the government out of the economy. He only opposed it when it was obvious that it wasn't going to work. When it looked like government had a chance to fix the financial industry, he called off his campaign to run to Washington to help ensure government acted hastily.</p>
<p>Sarah Palin still hasn't figured out if the bailouts are a good idea.</p>
<p>The problem we face when we try to look at each individual situation from a pragmatic point-of-view is that it is easy to become persuaded by the propaganda or swept up in the hysteria surrounding these crises. After all, if there is one thing government is good at, it's making a mountain out of a molehill. However, a philosophical opposition will at least throw the brakes on any government plan to get involved in the economy. </p>
<p>If we really have any desire for economic prosperity in the future, it is crucial that we not only become pragmatically opposed to government intervention in the market, but also philosophically opposed to such practices.</p>
<div><em>To read Mankiw's blog, please visit it <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/crises-and-government.html">here</a>.</em></div>
<div>
<div><em>For a list of other great economic blogs, click <a href="http://www.blogs.com/topten/the-really-10-best-economics-blogs/">here</a>.</em></div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div></div></div>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:05:41 +0000Andrew Davis3928 at http://www.lp.orghttp://www.lp.org/blogs/andrew-davis/calamity-and-consequence#comments